Skip to content

Facebook InstagramX

Ethics

Categories: Home -> Philosophy

Important note: When you finish reading this article you will have a strong sense of the whole panorama of ethics and you may have more questions than answers; that means you are on the right path.

Definition of ethics

Why do we talk about ethics here? What does it have to do with political ideas? It is simple: How do you realize that a political idea is good or bad? How can you be sure that you are really doing something good or correct?

What is it that makes an idea and an action good or bad, correct or incorrect? This is where ethics arises:

  • The discipline that analyzes good and bad is ethics, specifically within philosophy.
  • Ethics studies in a rational and systematic way the concepts of good and evil, moral norms, and the principles that guide human behavior, seeking logical foundations to determine what is correct or incorrect.

Determining whether an action is good or bad is relatively easy with simple situations, but it is not with complex ones.

Morality and ethics

Morality is the set of customs accepted by a society at a given moment. All actions that go against these customs/norms established in that society are considered immoral, even if they may be ethically good.

For example, in many societies it was morally accepted to own slaves, yet this is something ethically bad. In this sense, on this wiki only ethical norms matter, not moral ones. Here we will not speak of morality.

What other people thought about ethics

Each person knows internally what they consider good or bad; however, it is very important to know what other people who devoted a large part of their lives to the study of ethics thought, in order to broaden our view of the topic and know what is being discussed with authority and knowledge.

The classification of ethical ideas (branches/currents) is more complex than what we will show next, but we will do it this way to simplify the topic:

  1. Virtue ethics: Aristotle

  2. Deontology: Duty, what ought to be: Kant

    2.1 Natural Law (IusNaturalism): (from the Latin ius, right, and natura, nature) Natural right or law, which is the basis of libertarian ethics.

  3. Utilitarianism: Maximum benefit for the majority, of Mill, Bentham, etc.

  4. Relativisms, Existentialisms, and others:
    • Currents that are not based on good and bad, but rather on new values that improve the human being. As an example we will discuss the following authors: Machiavelli, Hume, Nietzsche, Camus, Sartre.
    • In order to summarize the topic of ethics we leave other authors to be analyzed in detail on other pages: Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Hobbes, Thomas Reid, John Locke, Robert Nozick, Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand, Jeremy Bentham, Alasdair MacIntyre, Michel Foucault, Sun Tzu, John Rawls, Hannah Arendt, and others (see links at the end of the page)

Note: Here only a summary of the idea will be shown, along with a link to the detail of the concepts.

Aristotle (384–322 BC) (Summary)

Virtue ethics

Nicomachean Ethics is Aristotle’s central work on morality and the good life. In it he holds that the ultimate end of human life is eudaimonia, translated as happiness, human flourishing, or a fulfilled life. This happiness is not a momentary pleasure, but a way of living that allows the human being to fully realize their rational nature. According to Aristotle, we reach eudaimonia by practicing the virtues, which are stable dispositions to act well.

Aristotle explains that moral virtue consists in finding the right mean between two vicious extremes: for example, between recklessness and cowardice is courage; between wastefulness and stinginess is generosity. Virtues are not possessed by nature; they are acquired through habitual practice, in the same way that one learns an art. Alongside the moral virtues there are also intellectual virtues, such as practical wisdom (phronesis), which guides action and allows one to choose correctly.

The book also highlights the importance of friendship, justice, and the contemplative life. Aristotle holds that the human being is a social being, and that a good life requires deep bonds and a just community. He concludes by noting that the highest form of happiness is reached in contemplative activity, where reason is fully exercised. Altogether, the work is a guide to living well, based on the development of character, reason, and human relationships.

Aristotle presents a personal point of view: he proposes that if one changes, by living a life of virtue, the environment changes.

Critique of Aristotle

  • The idea that human nature has an inherent end or purpose (telos) (namely eudaimonia), and that morality is based on attaining it, is questioned.
  • His idea of well-being stands in contrast to modern ideas of happiness, often linked to consumption or subjective well-being.
  • Determining “the mean” is very complicated on certain occasions.

For details go to -> Aristotle

Immanuel Kant (1724–1755) (Summary)

Deontology (Duty)

Immanuel Kant’s (1724–1804) ethical thought centers on deontology (deon = "duty"), an ethical theory based on duty and reason, not on consequences.

His main idea is the categorical imperative, which establishes that we must act according to rules that can be universalized (in every time and place) without contradiction and that respect persons as ends in themselves, not as means.

  • Categorical imperative:

    • "Act only according to that maxim which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law". Your actions must be coherent with principles that everyone could follow. EX: Do not lie, do not kill, under any circumstance or excuse.
      • Ex: A person tells a lie to get out of a tight spot. Kant would ask for a thought experiment: What would happen if everyone, by natural law, had to lie whenever they were in a tight spot?

  • Autonomy and dignity:

    • "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always as an end and never merely as a means".
    • Humanity is in itself the end of things, not a tool for achieving ends. This is the basis of modern Human Rights. For Kant, persons have "dignity," not a "price"; they are not objects for reaching an end.

  • Reason as a guide:

    • Ethics is based on pure reason, not on emotions, not on desires, not on preferences or tastes, not on results; rather, reason must analyze all of these aspects.
    • Reason is the source of ethics. Every person, by being rational, can discover what is good and act according to laws that they give themselves (autonomy).
    • The Categorical Imperative is possibly the most famous tool in the history of ethics. Kant wanted to find a "moral law" that did not depend on religion or on feelings, but purely on reason.

  • Duty above all:

    • What matters is not the result, but acting from duty, because we recognize that something is the right thing to do.
    • For Kant, consequences can be unpredictable; the only thing we control is our intention.

Kant emphasizes universality, rationality, and respect for humanity as the basis of ethics.

Criticisms of Kant’s ethics

Kant is one of those who receive the most criticism; I will name only some:

  • Too abstract: It is criticized for being too abstract and formal. The categorical imperative ("act according to the maxim that you can will as a universal law") does not offer concrete guidance for specific situations, which can make its practical application difficult.
  • Disconnection from emotions: Kant prioritizes reason over emotions (which for him have no importance)
  • Disconnection from consequences: Kant does not take into account the results of actions, only the intention.
  • Too rigid: Kant requires that morality be absolutely rational and universal, without exceptions. This can lead to absurd or inhumane conclusions (Example: not lying to save someone’s life). This rigidity does not consider the complexity of human circumstances or conflicts between duties.

For details go to -> Immanuel Kant (1724–1755)

Natural Law (IusNaturalism) (Summary)

Natural Law (IusNaturalism) (also called Natural Law or Natural Right) is one of the oldest and most persistent currents in the philosophy of law, ethics, and politics. It affirms that there exist principles of justice, rights, or ethical norms that are universal, immutable, and superior to human laws (positive law), derived from human nature, reason, or an eternal divine law.

For a natural-law thinker, the validity of a law does not depend on a King, Emperor, Dictator, Sacred Book, or Parliament having approved it, but on its being just and respecting human nature.

This idea is what historically allowed absolute power to be challenged: if the King issues a law that goes against human nature, that law is invalid.

Natural Law has 2 branches, one Christian theological and another rational/secular; both arrive at the same concepts. Natural law is not a written code, but a set of principles derived from reason and the observation of human nature. With the question "What is good for the human being?", one arrives at a list similar to the one below, which represent the natural laws:

  • Preservation of life
  • Procreation and care of offspring
  • Liberty (which implies avoiding harm to others)
  • Private property (the fruit of your work)
  • Search for knowledge and truth
  • Promotion of the common good
  • Justice and respect for contracts (in order to live in society)

Critiques of Natural Law

  • Vagueness and indefiniteness of the principles: The principles of natural law (such as "do good and avoid evil" or "sociability") are too abstract and general, which makes their practical application difficult without subjective interpretations. There is no universal consensus on what constitutes "human nature" or the "good."

  • Cultural and historical relativism: The principles of natural law, although presented as universal, often reflect the cultural, religious, or historical values of a specific era or society, which calls into question their supposed universality.

  • Difficulty in resolving practical conflicts: Natural laws, being general principles, do not offer clear mechanisms for resolving specific conflicts or concrete cases, which limits their usefulness in legal practice.

Response from natural law (iusnaturalism):

  • Vagueness allows flexibility to adapt the principles to historical contexts.
  • The connection between law and morality is necessary to avoid unjust laws (for example, Nazi laws, slavery, etc.).
  • The principles of natural law have inspired advances in human rights.

Utilitarianism

John Stuart Mill (1806–1873)

  • Utilitarianism proposes that an action is correct if it maximizes happiness or well-being for the greatest number of people. It is a consequentialist doctrine: the ethical value of an action depends on its results.

John Stuart Mill’s “Utilitarianism” is a fundamental book in ethics that defends the principle of utility or of the greatest happiness. The central idea is that actions are morally correct to the extent that they tend to promote the happiness of the majority.

The ethical standard is not the happiness of the individual, but the “greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.”

  • According to Mill, happiness is pleasure and the absence of pain. However, unlike other utilitarians, he introduces the distinction between higher and lower pleasures.
  • Intellectual pleasures are more valuable than purely physical or sensory (lower) pleasures. A person who knows both will always prefer the higher pleasure.

Critiques of Utilitarianism

  • Problem of Injustice and Individual Rights: The most serious objection. Since utilitarianism focuses only on maximizing total well-being (if we expressed it in mathematics it is the result of: happiness divided by pain), it can justify the violation of fundamental rights or the imposition of great sacrifices on a minority, so long as the benefit for the majority is sufficient. Example: kill one person to save 100.
  • Depersonalization: Utilitarianism treats people as numbers in a total sum of well-being, not as ends in themselves.

Relativisms, Existentialisms, and others

Ethical relativism holds that moral judgments (what is good, bad, correct, or incorrect) are not universal, but depend on the cultural, social, historical, or individual context. There are no absolute moral truths; what is “good” varies according to circumstances. However, none of the authors approve absolute relativism. None justifies evil for its own sake or “anything goes”; each relativist current has very absolute limits regarding the topic of evil.

These ideas/branches/theories arose as a complement or evolution to absolutist ideas of good and evil, correct and incorrect, seeing them from another point of view

As we said before, in order to summarize and give an idea we will speak of certain authors; the rest will have their own article with a link at the end of the page. In the writer’s judgment, the most important authors and philosophical branches regarding these relativisms we set out are the following:

  • Political realism: Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527)
  • Empiricism: David Hume (1711–1776)
  • Existentialism (Vitalist?): Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900)
  • Existentialism: Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980)

Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527)

Political realism

Machiavelli does not propose a personal ethics, but a guide for rulers in a world where traditional ethics is often an obstacle to political success. His approach is descriptive (how effective leaders act) and normative (how they should act in order to succeed). He focuses on what works to maintain power and order in an uncertain and conflictive world, more than on abstract ideals of good or evil.

  • Separation of ethics and politics

    • Machiavelli breaks with the medieval tradition that subordinated politics to religious morality or to universal principles (such as those of Kant or Christianity). For him, politics has its own rules, based on human reality (ambition, fear, interests) and not on ethical ideals. A ruler must act according to what is effective, not necessarily what is “ethical.”

  • The end justifies the means (if it keeps you in power when necessary)

    • Although Machiavelli does not say it literally, this idea sums up his thought.
    • A ruler’s actions are judged by their effective results in maintaining power and guaranteeing the stability of the State, not by their goodness.
    • It is not about being wicked for pleasure, but about using hard means when they are necessary to avoid a greater evil (such as civil war, anarchy, loss of power). Actions are correct if they serve to maintain the stability and the good of the State.

  • Pessimism about human nature

    • Machiavelli sees human beings as selfish, ambitious, and unreliable. Therefore, a ruler must be shrewd as a fox (to avoid traps) and strong as a lion (to impose himself). He cannot trust people’s goodness, but their interest or fear.

  • Virtue (virtù) and fortune

    • Virtù: Energy, shrewdness, decision, strength, and capacity to act effectively. It is not “moral virtue,” but skill and courage to maintain power and achieve results.
    • Fortune: Luck, chance, or external circumstances that the ruler cannot control.
    • The good ruler must use his virtù to master fortune, that is, be skillful and adaptable in order to preserve the State.

Critiques of Machiavelli

Another figure with hundreds of criticisms; we summarize some:

  • Amorality or immorality: Machiavelli is criticized for justifying acts such as deceit or violence if they secure power.
  • Ethical relativism: His idea that the end justifies the means lacks universal moral principles.
  • Lack of justice: He prioritizes the ruler’s stability over the rights or well-being of citizens.
  • Pessimism about human nature: He assumes that people are selfish, promoting an ethics based on fear and manipulation.

David Hume (1711–1776)

Empiricism

David Hume’s ethics, known as moral emotivism or moral sentimentalism, holds that moral judgments are not based on reason or objective facts, but on the feeling (approval or disapproval) that an action or quality of character provokes in the observer, aided by sympathy and the criterion of utility.

  1. Morality is based on feelings, not on reason

    • Hume says that morality does not arise from universal rational principles (as in Kant), but from feelings of approval or disapproval that we experience in the face of actions. Example: An action is “good” because it produces in us a feeling of pleasure or moral approval, not because it is objectively correct.

  2. Sympathy as a moral foundation

    • Sympathy (a kind of empathy) is the human capacity to share the feelings of others, which allows us to approve actions that benefit others or society. Example: we help someone because we feel their pain or joy, not because we follow a rational rule.

  3. Distinction between facts and values (“Hume’s guillotine”)

    • Hume points out that one cannot derive an “ought” (ethical value) from an “is” (fact). For example, it is not enough to describe that someone suffers in order to conclude that we must help them; that conclusion depends on a moral feeling, not on logic. I only justify it if I feel it describes his thought quite precisely.

  4. Utility and pleasure as moral criteria

    • Although he is not a utilitarian like Bentham or Mill, Hume recognizes that many actions or virtues are approved because they are useful or agreeable, either for the individual or for society. Example: We approve honesty because it facilitates social trust, which is useful for everyone.

  5. Rejection of absolute morality

    • Hume is skeptical of morals based on God, pure reason, or universal principles. Moral judgments are relative to human feelings and the social context, although sympathy and utility give a certain universality to moral preferences.

Critiques of David Hume

Again, many criticisms; we will name only some:

  • Excessive subjectivism: Hume holds that ethical judgments derive from personal feelings, which leads to criticisms that his ethics is too subjective. This implies that there is no objective standard for distinguishing good from evil, since feelings vary among individuals and cultures.

  • Inconsistency with moral action: Basing morality on feelings can lead to inconsistencies, since emotions are volatile and can change quickly, affecting moral judgments.

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900)

Existentialism (Vitalist?)

Friedrich Nietzsche’s ethical thought is complex and is considered relativist. His ethics centers on the will to power, the affirmation of life, and the creation of individual values. His main ideas are:

  1. Slave morality: According to Nietzsche, religious and universal morals (such as Christianity or Kantianism) are “slave morals,” which promote submission, humility, and the denial of vital instincts. These morals arise from the weakness and resentment of the oppressed against the strong.

  2. Will to power: For Nietzsche, life is defined by the will to power, an innate impulse of overcoming, creation, and affirmation of existence. Ethics must reflect this vital force, not repress it.

  3. The overman (Übermensch): He proposes the figure of the overman as an ethical ideal, an individual who creates his own values, overcomes the limitations of conventional morality, and embraces life in its totality, including suffering and tragedy.

  4. Revaluation of values: Nietzsche questions and replaces inherited values (such as Christian guilt or obedience) with values that affirm life, creativity, and individuality. This implies accepting the absence of absolute truths (“God is dead”).

  5. Relativism: There is no universal morality; values are relative to individual and cultural perspectives. Ethics must be an authentic expression of the individual, not an external imposition.

  6. Amor fati: Nietzsche promotes the acceptance and love of fate, embracing life with all its contradictions, without seeking transcendental justifications.

Nietzsche’s idea is to live in an authentic, creative, and courageous way, rejecting dogmas and affirming life through the will to power and the creation of one’s own values. It is an ethics of self-affirmation and overcoming, opposed to notions of universal duty or submission.

Critiques of Nietzsche

  • Extreme moral relativism: If there are no universal values and each individual creates their own, morality becomes totally subjective. It opens the door to an ethics of unlimited power, where “the good” depends on the strength or will of the strongest.

  • Antidemocratic and Elitist: Nietzsche’s ethics openly rejects the moral equality of individuals and exalts the figure of superior individuals. This is seen as an intrinsically antidemocratic and elitist philosophy that justifies exploitation or contempt toward the “weak” or “masses.”

  • Potentially Inhumane: By repudiating values such as compassion and mercy (which he attributes to the resentment of slaves), his ethics seems to justify cruelty or indifference toward others’ suffering in the name of the strength and personal overcoming of the Overman.

  • Political misinterpretations (link with Nazism): At the beginning of the 20th century, the Nazis manipulated Nietzsche’s ideas —especially that of the overman and the will to power— to justify their racist and totalitarian ideology.

Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980)

Existentialism

The ethical thought of Jean-Paul Sartre, grounded in his atheistic existentialism, is an ethics of radical responsibility that arises from the absolute freedom of the human being. It is summed up in the famous phrase: “existence precedes essence”.

This means that the human being, unlike an object, first exists (is born, finds himself in the world) and only afterward defines himself through his choices and actions. There is no preestablished “human nature,” nor is there God or values prior that guide his conduct. Man becomes his decisions.

  • The human being is a project: The human being is a project that is lived subjectively. Man is “what he makes of himself.” Essence (who he is, what he is) is built throughout existence through the sum of his acts and decisions.

  • Condemned to be free: Man is condemned to be free. Condemned, because he has not created himself (he has not chosen to exist), and free, because once thrown into the world, he is absolute master of his choices and therefore responsible for everything he does.

  • Universal Responsibility: In choosing how to act, man not only chooses himself, but creates an image of man as he believes man ought to be. In choosing a value, he affirms it as the ideal value for everyone.

  • Authenticity:
    • Sartre’s ethics is a call to authenticity. To act authentically is to assume one’s own freedom and responsibility.
    • Bad faith is the opposite: Denying one’s own freedom, pretending that we are victims of circumstances or that “we have no choice.” Example: A person who says “I am only following orders” acts in bad faith because they deny their moral freedom.

Critiques of Jean-Paul Sartre

  • Moral subjectivism: If each person creates their own values, then there are no objective criteria for judging good or bad. Example: Two people can justify opposite actions with equal legitimacy. Sartre demands that we act “for humanity,” but he does not offer a concrete way to determine what is really “good for all.”

  • Excess of freedom: Sartre describes the individual as totally free, but ignores real limitations (social, economic, psychological, cultural). In practice, not everyone can “choose to be free” if they live in conditions of oppression or misery.

  • Anguish, despair, and lack of moral orientation: His ethics leads to an existentially anguishing experience, because the human being must decide without secure references. “Nothing guarantees us that our choice is correct.”

Albert Camus (1913–1960)

Existentialism (solidary rebellion in the face of the Absurd)

  1. The starting point: the absurd
    Camus holds that life lacks a transcendental or divine purpose (the "absurd" arises from the conflict between our desire for meaning and the indifference and silence of the universe). Man desires an absolute meaning, but the universe is indifferent. That contradiction is the absurd.
    → Camus’s ethics does not start from God, from History, or from any ideology, but from that naked experience of the absurd.

  2. Rejection of the two false exits

    • Physical suicide: suppressing one’s own life (for Camus, capitulating).
    • Philosophical suicide: inventing a meaning (religion, Marxism, Sartrean existentialism).
      Both are “betrayals” of lucidity.

  3. The only worthy response: Rebellion (Ethics)
    Rebellion (Ethics) is saying “no” to the absurd and at the same time “yes” to life.
    «I rebel, therefore we exist».
    Rebellion (ethics):

    • promises nothing, but maintains human dignity.
    • is not an act of destruction, but a commitment to justice, solidarity, and the defense of human dignity in the face of oppression or meaninglessness.
    • implies saying "no" to the unacceptable, but also affirming shared values.
    • is a cry that affirms that there is something in the human being that "is worth defending".

  4. Three ethical values that are born of Rebellion

    • Lucidity: looking at reality without lying to oneself.
    • Liberty: rejecting all voluntary servitude.
    • Solidarity: the «I rebel» becomes «we rebel». Human destiny is shared.

  5. Measure and limit (the great theme of maturity)
    From 1950 onward Camus criticizes revolutions that, in order to create a future paradise, accept killing innocents today.
    → Rebellion must have ethical limits:
    «I cannot accept that one kills in the name of what prevents me from killing».
    That is why he rejects both terrorism (of the FLN in Algeria) and totalitarianisms.

  6. The ethics of the “man without God”
    Without transcendental hope, the only possible holiness is holiness without God: doing good here and now, without expecting reward.
    Examples in his works:

    • Doctor Rieux in The Plague (fights without hope, but fights).
    • The judge-penitent in The Fall is the opposite: moral hypocrisy.

  7. Mediterranean ethics: the balance between opposites
    Camus always seeks the Greek “measure”:

    • Neither nihilism nor absolute idealism.
    • Neither cynicism nor fanaticism.
    • Loving life as it is (with its beauty and its pain) without asking it to be something else.

His emblematic phrase: «In the midst of winter, I found there was, within me, an invincible summer».

Camus’s ethics is a call to live intensely and to act with honesty and solidarity in a world without transcendental meaning, making justice and human dignity the only absolutes.

To live with lucidity in a world without meaning, to rebel without hatred, and to help one’s neighbor without expecting anything in return. That is the morality of Albert Camus: an atheist, tragic, and deeply human ethics summed up in the phrase of Doctor Rieux in The Plague: «What one learns in misfortune is that there is in men more things worthy of admiration than of contempt».

Criticisms of Albert Camus’s ethics

  • Lack of normative depth:

    • Unlike Kant or utilitarianism, Camus does not provide clear rules or criteria for moral action. His idea of rebellion as resistance to oppression is inspiring, but it lacks specificity for applying it systematically

  • Ambiguity in the idea of “rebellion”:

    • Camus’s “rebellion” can be interpreted in opposite ways: Is it peaceful moral resistance or political revolution? Or when does it stop being just and become violence?
    • Marxist thinkers (such as Jean-Paul Sartre, after his break with Camus) accused him of political vagueness and of avoiding real revolutionary commitment.

  • Unrealistic moral idealism:

    • Although he values compassion and measure, Camus does not offer a practical guide for resolving concrete ethical dilemmas. How does one apply “measure” before a tyrant or a war?
    • Political and ethical philosophers see him as morally inspiring, but theoretically insufficient. His ethics moves one, but does not clearly orient action.

For details about Sisyphus read -> The Myth of Sisyphus

Examples of some ethical dilemmas

I show you here some ethical situations that are limit cases and among the best known, to show what each current would think:

  • The benevolent liar dilemma
  • The trolley dilemma

The benevolent liar dilemma

The benevolent liar dilemma (or “lying dilemma”) poses a situation in which a person must decide whether to lie to save a life or tell the truth and cause harm.

Thinker/Current Response Reason
Aristotle (Virtue ethics) Would probably lie Aristotle would evaluate the lie according to the right mean and virtue. Lying to save a life could reflect compassion and justice, so long as it does not become a habit that corrupts character. The decision depends on context and prudence.
Immanuel Kant (Deontology) Would not lie Kant would oppose lying, even to save a life, since it would violate the categorical imperative: “Act according to a maxim that you can will to become a universal law.” Lying destroys trust and contradicts rationality. Note: There is an option here that is not taken into account, which is the possibility of not answering
Utilitarianism (Bentham/Mill) Would lie Utilitarianism would justify lying if it maximizes general well-being. Saving a life outweighs the harm of a one-off lie, so long as it does not erode social trust in the long run.
Niccolò Machiavelli (Political realism) Would lie if it is effective Machiavelli would support lying if it achieves the objective (saving a life or maintaining power). Lying is a legitimate tool if used with shrewdness and efficacy, since the end justifies the means.
David Hume (Sentimentalism) Would probably lie Hume would justify lying if it reflects empathy and benevolence. Saving a life would generate emotional approval, aligning with morality based on feelings of sympathy.
Friedrich Nietzsche (Will to power) Depends on the person Nietzsche would not evaluate the lie in traditional moral terms. Lying could be valid if it reflects a strong and creative will, but not if it arises from weakness or fear. The authenticity of the person is key.
Albert Camus (Absurdism) Would probably lie Camus would support lying as an act of rebellion against injustice and the absurd. Protecting a life reflects human solidarity and commitment to dignity.
Jean-Paul Sartre (Existentialism) Depends on free choice Sartre would not give a universal answer. Lying would be valid if the agent assumes responsibility for their choice and acts with authenticity, avoiding bad faith. The decision creates moral meaning.
Natural Law (Aquinas/Locke) Would probably lie Religious natural-law thinkers would prioritize truth as a divine principle, while “non-religious / secular” ones (such as Locke) would emphasize the protection of natural rights such as life.

Additional notes

  • Ethical tensions: The dilemma highlights conflicts among deontology (Kant, who forbids lying on principle, though he allows not answering), utilitarianism (which prioritizes consequences), and contextual approaches such as virtue ethics (Aristotle), sentimentalism (Hume), or existentialism (Sartre). Natural law, as we discussed previously, can be ambiguous due to the vagueness of its principles, but it tends to prioritize the preservation of life.

  • Context of the dilemma: The response may vary according to the gravity of the harm (for example, lying to save someone from a genocide versus a lesser harm). This especially affects contextual approaches such as those of Aristotle, Nietzsche, Camus, and Sartre.

  • The table shows how Kant and some natural-law thinkers oppose lying on absolute principles, while utilitarianism, Machiavelli, Hume, Camus, and Sartre tend to justify it if it protects a greater good or reflects authenticity. Aristotle and Nietzsche offer contextual responses, depending on the person’s virtue or will.

The trolley dilemma

The trolley dilemma poses a situation in which an out-of-control trolley is heading toward five people tied to the tracks. You can pull a lever to divert it to another track where there is only one person. The question is: Should one pull the lever, sacrificing one life to save five, or do nothing, allowing the five to die?

Thinker/Current Response Reason
Aristotle (Virtue ethics) Would probably pull the lever Aristotle would evaluate the action according to the right mean and virtue. Saving five lives could reflect justice and prudence, so long as it does not become a habit that ignores the value of individual life. The decision would depend on the context and the character of the person.
Immanuel Kant (Deontology) Would not pull the lever Kant would consider pulling the lever an immoral act, since it implies using the person on the other track as a means to an end (saving five), violating the categorical imperative: “Treat persons as ends in themselves.” Doing nothing avoids the direct responsibility of killing. The correct thing here would be to prevent anyone from dying.
Utilitarianism (Bentham/Mill) Would pull the lever Utilitarianism seeks to maximize general well-being. Sacrificing one life to save five produces the greatest good (least harm). Bentham would prioritize the quantitative calculation, while Mill would consider the quality of well-being, but both would support the action.
Niccolò Machiavelli (Political realism) Would pull the lever if it is effective Machiavelli would evaluate the action according to its efficacy. If saving five lives reinforces power, stability, or the person’s standing, he would pull the lever. Morality is secondary to the practical result.
David Hume (Sentimentalism) Would probably pull the lever Hume would base the decision on feelings of empathy. Saving five lives would generate greater emotional approval than saving one, justifying the action. Morality arises from the passions, not from reason.
Friedrich Nietzsche (Will to power) Depends on the person Nietzsche would not follow a universal moral rule. Pulling the lever could reflect a strong will that affirms life, but not doing so could challenge enslaving norms. The decision would depend on whether the agent acts with authenticity and power.
Albert Camus (Absurdism) Would probably pull the lever Camus would value saving lives as an act of rebellion against the absurd and injustice. Protecting five people reflects human solidarity, though he would recognize the tragedy of sacrificing one life.
Jean-Paul Sartre (Existentialism) Depends on free choice Sartre would not give a universal answer, since morality depends on individual freedom. Pulling or not pulling the lever would be valid if the agent assumes responsibility for their choice without falling into bad faith. The decision creates moral meaning.
Natural Law (Aquinas/Locke) Would probably not pull the lever Natural law prioritizes the preservation of life as a universal principle, but intentionally sacrificing one life could violate the principle of not harming (Aquinas) or natural rights (Locke). However, some natural-law thinkers might justify saving five if the common good is considered.

Additional notes

  • Ethical tensions: The trolley dilemma highlights conflicts among utilitarianism (maximizing the good), deontology (absolute rules, such as not killing), and contextual approaches such as virtue ethics (Aristotle) or existentialism (Sartre). Natural law partially aligns with Kant in prioritizing universal principles, but its emphasis on life can lead to utilitarian decisions in some cases.
  • Context of the dilemma: The “fat man” variant (pushing a person to stop the trolley) could alter the responses, since it implies a more direct action than an indirect one (pulling a lever). For example, Kant would be even firmer in not acting, and Aristotle might hesitate more due to the active character of the act.
  • Natural Law: Religious natural-law thinkers such as Aquinas might prioritize not intervening (respecting the sanctity of individual life), while non-religious/secular ones, such as Locke, might consider the common good and pull the lever.

Conclusion

Utilitarians and practical approaches (Machiavelli, Hume, Camus) tend to pull the lever, while Kant and some natural-law thinkers oppose it on absolute principles. Aristotle, Nietzsche, and Sartre offer contextual responses, depending on the character, authenticity, or freedom of the person.

To comment on or discuss this article

Click the link to access the discussions on the different networks

Next page

Categories: Home -> Philosophy

Last updated: 2025-10-29

|Facebook | Instagram |X |

This site was written based on publicly available free articles from the internet.
The content of this site is available under the: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license.
You can freely copy, redistribute and modify the material, as long as the source is mentioned: liberwiki.com